scienceon_patent_citations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it returns citation/cited-by info, which is helpful, but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as result format, pagination, or limitations. With annotations present, the description is adequate but not exemplary.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. The key information (what, how, by what identifier) is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the return structure is documented elsewhere. The description covers the core purpose and both citing and cited aspects (인용/피인용). It does not mention any prerequisites or edge cases, but for a simple single-parameter read tool, this is largely complete. Slight deduction for not noting that the CN must come from a prior patent search, though that is in the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'cn', with the schema already explaining it's a unique patent identifier from patent search results. The main description just repeats 'CN번호로', adding no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action (조회합니다/retrieve) and resource (특허 인용/피인용 정보/patent citation/cited-by information) with the method (CN번호로/by CN number). It differentiates from siblings like scienceon_patents and scienceon_patent_details by focusing specifically on citation data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used when you have a CN number and need citation/cited-by information, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The purpose itself gives context, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.